SPER Committee Meeting

SUB-COMMITTEE ON THE STATUS OF PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES OF THE STANDING COMMITTEE ON HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT AND THE STATUS OF PERSONS WITH DISABILITES

SOUS-COMITÉ DE LA CONDITION DES PERSONNES HANDICAPÉES DU COMITÉ PERMANENT DU DÉVELOPPEMENT DES RESSOURCES HUMAINES ET DE LA CONDITION DES PERSONNES HANDICAPÉES

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Tuesday, November 27, 2001

• 1602

[English]

The Chair (Ms. Carolyn Bennett (St. Paul's, Lib.)): Welcome.

[Translation]

Welcome to meeting No. 11.

[English]

The clerk has advised me that it would be a good idea if we had a motion to undertake this study or some sort of agreement. So maybe Wendy would like to give us a motion, or do we just have some sort of agreement from the committee that we will proceed with the study on the disability tax credits?

Ms. Wendy Lill (Dartmouth, NDP): Would you like me to move that?

The Chair: Sure.

Ms. Wendy Lill: I would like to make a motion that we proceed with this proposed work plan on the study of the disability tax credit.

The Chair: Okay. And I think, from the notes, the study would focus on the administrative policy issues surrounding the current operation of the disability tax credit, the definition of disability and how it's applied to the criteria used to establish eligibility, and the reassessment procedure and the cost to the health system and to individuals of obtaining documented certification.

Do we have to vote? No. We're not voting—it's a good idea.

It is on all of the above that we are thrilled to welcome this extraordinarily important panel—

The Clerk of the Committee: We do need unanimous consent, though.

The Chair: We do have unanimous consent, apparently. So that's good.

This panel dealing with mental health issues assembles a group that I think have been communicating with members of our committee in their ridings and through the committee for a long time. I think a lot of you have individually expressed that you're happy to be here, so we're happy to hear from you, and we hope we'll be able to take your issues forward.

The first witness will be Lembi Buchanan, who is appearing as an individual.

Ms. Lembi Buchanan (Individual Presentation): Thank you, Dr. Bennett and members of the committee, for recognizing the urgency for a full review of the disability tax credit certificate that affects hundreds of individuals with mental illnesses who are being treated unjustly. I will be following the progress of this submission throughout the parliamentary process until the issues brought forward today are resolved.

Mental illness is one of the least understood and least accepted of all illnesses. Individuals with mental illnesses remain among the most vulnerable members of our society. Unlike individuals with physical disabilities, they do not always have the intellectual capacity or the mental stamina to pursue their causes. For many these illnesses are a source of shame and embarrassment. As a result, they are unwilling or unable to stand up for their rights when an injustice is done, and that's why I'm here today.

• 1605

In recent years it has become virtually impossible for anyone with a serious mental illness to qualify for the tax credit without appealing the decision to the Tax Court of Canada. Even for people who previously qualified for the benefit, questions requiring a simple yes or no answer trivialize the complexities of all mental illnesses. The question, “Can your patient perceive, think, and remember?”, essentially excludes all individuals with a severe and prolonged mental illness, because they can still think, perceive, and remember, although their thought processes may be dysfunctional, erratic, bizarre, or delusional. Such discrimination is unlawful. Such discrimination is a poor reflection of our society's values.

My husband suffers from bipolar disorder, also known as manic depressive illness. He was first diagnosed in February 1973 after he was discovered on the roof of St. Patrick's Cathedral in New York City only partially clothed in frigid weather; he was there waiting for a helicopter to take him to God. Thanks to a new wonder drug called lithium, my husband has not always been disabled by this mental illness caused by a biochemical disorder in the brain. For almost 20 years he managed to lead a relatively normal, productive life because of the lithium.

In December 1990, however, he suffered a major setback and never fully recovered. There is not a moment in the day or night when my husband is not being held hostage by this illness, which can have devastating consequences, not only for him, but for the rest of the family. The roller coaster ride can start any time, set off by a manic high with grandiose delusions, and ultimately plummeting into a debilitating depression.

Like others with a severe and prolonged mental illness that markedly restricts the ability to think, perceive, and remember, my husband qualified for the tax credit for many years, but now he and so many others are being rejected. Why is this happening? The Income Tax Act hasn't changed, the eligibility criteria haven't changed. It is the same diagnosis, it is the same prognosis, it is even the same doctor filling out the form. Only the form has changed.

I believe the government bureaucrats and politicians do not always perceive mental impairments to be as severe as physical impairments. The Minister of Finance, the Honourable Paul Martin, in a letter dated September 13, 1999, which is in appendix 6 of the submission I originally gave to Dr. Bennett, wrote:

The Disability Tax Credit provides tax assistance for individuals who are severely impaired in a basic activity of daily living, such as walking, feeding and dressing oneself, which would indicate a much more severe disability.

Than what? Than my husband's disability? Mr. Martin neglected to mention that some of the basic activities of daily living are thinking, perceiving, and remembering.

Besides, it's costing too much money. Once again Paul Martin explains:

If eligibility for the Disability Tax Credit were broadened to include situations such as you have described as well as persons with severe disabilities, the federal cost would be much greater than the $275 million.

Are these individuals less deserving? Judge Diane Campbell of the Tax Court of Canada didn't think so when she ruled in my husband's favour last June. She said it is an obvious case. With due respect to Mr. Martin, the main problem facing government officials is the lack of understanding of the disabling impacts of a serious mental illness.

In Radage vs The Queen in 1996 Tax Court Judge Donald Bowman explored the meaning of each of the words, thinking, perceiving, and remembering, and concluded that Taavi Radage, at 24 years of age, was markedly restricted in his ability to think, perceive, and remember because of his intellectual limitations, even though he was in a work placement program and was earning $60 a week.

• 1610

Judge Campbell also understood the disabling impact of my husband's illness, and she wrote:

Although the Appellant is certainly able to operate adequately in some areas, his impairment permeates his entire existence....while engaged in some seemingly rational activity to an outsider, all other thought processes are otherwise exploding in an array of erratic, bizarre and potentially harmful activities....the Appellant's condition and resulting behaviour so far exceeds the normal and reasonable ambit that he comes within the otherwise very narrow confines of these sections of the Act.

Canada Customs and Revenue Agency ignores not only the wisdom of Tax Court judges, but also the provisions of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The Supreme Court of Canada has recognized the distinct disadvantage and negative stereotyping faced by persons with mental disabilities, and has held that discrimination against these individuals is unlawful. Nevertheless, they no longer qualify for the tax credit, because of the changes to the form. The question with respect to mental functions is incorrect, incomplete, ambiguous, and it has no medical basis. Furthermore, the question misrepresents the tax act and disregards case law. We cannot condone a government department that has abandoned its responsibility to the most vulnerable members of our society.

A number of judges have also criticized the form. Judge Bowman stated in his ruling in Morrison v The Queen:

It is clear that Parliament should reconsider the wording.... Having heard dozens of these cases, I have found that such certificates are often unreliable, contradictory or confusing.... Section 118.3 is an important section and it means a great deal to many small taxpayers.

That's section 118.3 of the Income Tax Act.

In another case Federal Court of Appeal Judge Sexton said:

It is not obvious that putting the questions as they are in this form results in a thorough consideration by the doctor of the questions confronting him. Putting checks in a box is perhaps not the best way of eliciting just results.

A just result is all I'm asking for. We expect our government to be fiscally responsible, but it is unconscionable when cost-saving measures are carried out by targeting the most vulnerable members of our society. Surely, as a society, we can do better. In the meantime, for many of us, as Audrey Cole pointed out last week, the fight just never ends.

The Chair: Thank you very much. I think your fight has been extraordinarily important, in this file particularly, and we're lucky to have you and your track record here with us as we deliberate.

Mary Ann Chang from the Alzheimer Society of Canada will testify next.

Ms. Mary Ann Chang (Executive Director, Alzheimer Society of Canada): Thank you, Dr. Bennett and members of the committee, for this opportunity to address you.

I don't think these days I can talk to anyone about Alzheimer's disease without them saying, oh, I know so and so, but let me remind you what Alzheimer's disease is. It's a neurological condition that is progressive and ultimately fatal. It robs individuals of their memory and their ability to think, communicate, and take care of themselves. The illness develops over a long period of time, with gradual loss of mental functions, and can last well over 12 years. For the majority of those years people with the disease live at home, cared for by their families.

The disease manifests itself at first with memory impairment, loss of ability to concentrate and understand abstract concepts, and language difficulties, such as finding the right words to express the right thoughts. Later on orientation to time and space are affected, and all the previous symptoms become more pronounced, but the decline is often slow and insidious.

• 1615

As the disease progresses, the person gradually loses his ability to function independently, and will require more and more help to perform normal activities of daily living, such as personal hygiene, dressing, eating, bathing, etc. However, even though the impact of the disease is prolonged and causes severe mental impairment, it doesn't mean the person at any stage is without some ability to perceive, think, or remember. For example, even those who are quite impaired often remember with accuracy details of events from long ago, because long-term memory is often retained long after mental impairment is obvious and severe. This is one piece of treatment advice we give to people who say, what can we do when we visit someone with severe Alzheimer's disease? We say, try to get them to talk about the past, because that long-term memory is still there.

The impact of disability tax credit certificate T2201 is that, we think, it discriminates against people with Alzheimer's disease and related dementia. The questions requiring simple yes and no responses don't provide a fair and accurate assessment of such people's disability. It is true that people with Alzheimer's disease suffer from a severe and prolonged mental impairment, but it is incorrect to assume that they cannot think, perceive, or remember at all, or that they cannot manage personal care without constant supervision. Indeed, some of our efforts at the Alzheimer's Society to help caregivers cope with this disease have been aimed at developing strategies that will allow the person to manage some aspects of personal care without constant supervision. For example, we suggest that putting out his clothes in proper order on the bed may mean a man can continue to dress himself without constant supervision until quite a late stage of dementia. But this doesn't mean they don't qualify for the tax benefit as measured by the eligibility criteria set out in the Income Tax Act.

We believe the way form T2201 is formulated reduces the health professional's ability to a narrow parameter of simple yes and no answers. We don't think this provides any room for a fair assessment of those suffering from Alzheimer's disease and related dementia. Indeed, we know that physicians are wary now about filling in the form, thereby depriving individuals of a chance at a benefit provided legally by the Income Tax Act. Therefore, we ask that a thorough review of form T2201 be conducted and that future T2201s reflect the guidelines and objectives of the Income Tax Act, so that the eligibility criteria can be administered fairly to all disabled persons, regardless of their disability.

Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Now from the Canadian Mental Health Association Ed Pennington and Wendy Steinberg.

Mr. Ed Pennington (Executive Director, Canadian Mental Health Association): Thank you, Dr. Bennett and members of the committee. We will share our presentation and attempt to observe the same time limit.

Many of you know that the Canadian Mental Health Association is a national voluntary organization that's existed for over 80 years to promote the mental health of all people. Our infrastructure of 12 provincial and territorial divisions and approximately 120 branches in regions includes consumers of mental health services, family members, service providers, and interested community members. We're thus in a unique position to convey the common concerns of Canadians coming from a variety of perspectives, all of whom care about mental health and illness.

The main issue for us today in sharing with you our concerns is, as you've already heard, that the current disability tax credit application process is clearly discriminatory against persons with psychiatric disabilities across Canada. We'd like to share with you our specific concerns about the infamous form you've already registered in your minds, T2201.

Again, to refer to the question about whether a person can perceive, think, and remember, we'd like to reinforce what you've heard about the untenable position that puts the professional in who has to answer yes or no to that question. They can only answer no if all or almost all of the time, even with therapy, medication, or a device, the patient cannot perceive, think, and remember. Many physicians have refused to complete this form because they find the definition of disability is far too narrow and restricted and puts them in an impossible professional position. It's really hard to answer that question without contradicting their assessment of the patient.

• 1620

In our view, the federal government has failed to consult with health professionals concerning the cognitive or intellectual capacities and limitations of the seriously mentally ill. As a result, they've really allowed false assumptions to be created about this population, first, that with a severe and prolonged mental impairment, those individuals cannot think, perceive, or remember, second, that individuals with severe and prolonged mental impairment can't manage or initiate personal care without constant supervision. Since all persons with a persistent or recurrent mental illness can think, perceive, and remember, not one of them would qualify for the disability tax credit using this assessment tool. Therefore, the wording of the question fails to adequately measure and assess the disabling impact of this illness. For this reason, we do believe the form discriminates against the seriously mentally ill, who are among the most marginalized and oppressed citizens already in our society.

I'll ask Wendy Steinberg now to share with you our additional concerns.

Ms. Wendy Steinberg (Policy and Research Associate, Canadian Mental Health Association): Thank you.

As you've already heard and we'll reinforce, the form consists of a very complex set of questions that are presented in an extremely simple manner. We have heard from physicians across the country who have said there is not enough scope in the yes or no response box for an accurate medical assessment. An accurate diagnosis of these conditions often requires conducting a battery of psychological tests and subsequent analysis of these findings. These results do not lend themselves to an all or nothing, black or white response format.

Prior to 1997 health professionals were able to describe, in a narrative format, the restricting effects of the disability condition upon an individual's ability to perform the basic activities of daily living. This is no longer the case today. Since this new form came into effect, we have heard that Canada Customs and Revenue Agency has been reassessing eligibility more stringently. Many individuals and their families who were eligible for this credit prior to 1997 have been reassessed as ineligible, although the status of their disability has not changed. One must question whether individuals are being disqualified because their disability can no longer be adequately explained within the context of the questions being asked of health professionals on the T2201 form.

Our final concern with the application process is confusion concerning the basic activities of daily living. According to the form, basic activities of daily living include walking, speaking, perceiving, thinking, and remembering, hearing, feeding and dressing, and eliminating bodily waste. Many doctors have held the incorrect view that most persons with serious mental illness do not qualify for the credit because it is intended for those who have difficulty feeding themselves, dressing, using the washroom, or carrying on a simple conversation. In fact, it is important to understand that the six items defining a basic activity of daily living are not to be read together; rather, each activity is to be treated separately. There need to be clearer guidelines and instructions on how to complete this form, to minimize this type of confusion and inaccurate reporting.

Furthermore, persons with physical disabilities only need to qualify according to one single measure, whether it pertains to their ability to see, walk, speak, etc. Why is it, then, that persons with serious mental illness must be able to think, perceive, and remember, as well as be able to manage their personal affairs or do personal care without supervision? It would seem that this group must meet two separate criteria in order to be certified. Does this seem to be a fair and just process for all applicants involved? We suggest that mental disability should enjoy parity with physical disabilities.

• 1625

I'm going to let Ed conclude with the recommendations for change.

Mr. Ed Pennington: Madam Chair, we do have three recommendations, all really asking, to combine them under one description, that the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency clarify and revise the T2201 disability tax credit certificate to, first, reflect the guidelines and objectives of the Income Tax Act, so that eligibility criteria can be administered fairly with all disabled persons, regardless of their disability. Mental disability should be on a par with physical disability. Government agencies should not be discriminating against disabled persons with serious mental illness.

The certificate should provide an opportunity for health professionals to explain in a narrative format how a patient's mental disability substantially interferes with his or her ability to perform the basic activities of daily living, rather than simply boxing patients into a yes or no category. And the certificate should be changed to ensure that the application process includes a clear set of “how to” instructions for completion of the form, so as to minimize the inaccuracy of reporting on the part of physicians.

Thank you for this opportunity to share our concerns regarding what we think of as the discriminatory aspects of the disability tax credit application process. We look forward to continuing to work with you as you formulate your conclusions and work to a resolution.

Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you, both, very much.

Now we have Pauline Mantha from the Learning Disabilities Association of Canada.

[Translation]

Ms. Pauline Mantha (Executive Director, Learning Disabilities Association of Canada): Madame Chair, members of the committee, I would like to thank you for giving me an opportunity to tell you about the challenges we face with the disability tax credit. I would like to take this opportunity to recognize the contribution made by Ms. Lembi Buchanan, because we are here today primarily because of her efforts.

If I may, I will be making the rest of my comments in English.

[English]

At the outset, I would like to make two clarifications. First, the Learning Disabilities Association of Canada has never claimed or suggested that all Canadians with learning disabilities should qualify for the DTC. However, there is a small percentage of Canadians with severe learning disabilities who should qualify just as with any other severe disability.

The second clarification I would like to make relates to learning disabilities. No two people with learning disabilities will present the identical profile, so that one case, for example, may have difficulties reading and remembering, another person with learning disabilities may have difficulties writing or remembering words, and so on. So there are no two cases that are identical.

Now I'd like to offer three recommendations to this committee on how to improve the disability tax credit.

First—it may seem a bit ambitious, but bear with me, please—we would recommend that applicants who are denied the disability tax credit be provided with detailed information by CCRA officials as to why they have been turned down. In our view, medical practitioners put their accreditation on the line by signing these forms, and it seems to us only reasonable that if CCRA has the power to refuse these claims, they should have the professional courtesy to explain why. During the past few years many of our members have been denied the disability tax credit, and in our view, the manner in which these applications have been handled has been nothing less than erratic. So we would request that CCRA provide detailed information as to why claims are denied.

• 1630

Our second recommendation relates to form T2201; you've heard some very good suggestions on how to improve the form, and we would certainly support those. While the form has been revised on a number of occasions to improve it, in our view, it remains very much focused on physical disabilities. Part B of the form says:

Can your patient perceive, think, and remember? Answer no only if...for example...he or she cannot manage or initiate personal care without constant supervision.

This particular part of the form is intended to address learning disabilities and other cognitive disabilities. While I commend the effort, it is absolutely inappropriate. The fact that perceiving, thinking, and remembering is immediately translated into a physical activity, i.e., personal care, to us speaks volumes about the misunderstanding of learning disabilities and other cognitive disabilities.

Again under Part B, when the question, “Can your patient perceive, think, and remember?”, is presented, this particular phrase is very narrowly interpreted. According to CCRA officials, as Dr. Pennington said earlier, one has to be unable to perceive, think, or remember 100% of the time. Again we believe that this demonstrates the extent to which learning disabilities and other cognitive disabilities are misunderstood by CCRA officials. Basically, if you were to apply this 100% formula, one would have to be deceased in order to qualify for the DTC. If you can't think, perceive, or remember 100% of the time, you are dead.

In our view, the design of form T2201 undermines the potential impact of learning disabilities and cognitive disabilities on basic activities of daily living, and some very good examples were offered here today. The net effect of this form is to exclude persons with severe learning disabilities and other cognitive disabilities from the DTC, and this, in essence, is contrary to section 15 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

A third and final recommendation is that CCRA officials be provided with regular and ongoing training on learning disabilities and other cognitive disabilities. According to CCRA officials, those based on learning disabilities and other cognitive disabilities are the most difficult DTC applications to evaluate, and understandably so. We're talking about a number of complex disorders, and to pretend, with all due respect to the content expertise they do have, that CCRA officials have the training and expertise to make these evaluations is inappropriate. So they should receive regular and ongoing training. Our organization has always maintained that the diagnosis of learning disabilities and other cognitive disabilities should be rendered only by licensed professionals, and we remain steadfast in this position.

To close, it is our belief that the DTC challenges experienced by the disabilities community as a whole point to a much broader problem. We know persons with disabilities are turning to the courts in record numbers to seek justice. While they have the right, like any other Canadian, to turn to the courts to seek justice, it's absolutely wrong that they have to do so.

Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

We are awaiting the representative from the Schizophrenia Society of Canada, who was to arrive at 4:30 p.m. So if it's all right with the committee, we could begin the questions and answers, and then hear from that witness when he arrives.

• 1635

Mr. Spencer.

Mr. Larry Spencer (Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, Canadian Alliance): Thank you very much for coming.

Ms. Buchanan, you tell a story that reminds me of some people I know, so I'm very touched by that and very sympathetic to your situation. A friend of mine has Down's syndrome. She's 39 years old, and she works a few hours each week in the disabilities program. She is fortunate to have a mother who gives her constant care. How would this affect a person like that who works just those few hours—and this is tax related?

Ms. Lembi Buchanan: I'm not quite sure I understand the question, but in one of the cases I referred to, which is a very famous case, the Radage case—it's even referred to in the Income Tax Act itself—the individual had intellectual disabilities and was also working in a work placement program. And it is my hope that however the form is changed, that window will always be open for people with cognitive disabilities, mental disabilities. The blind can have a disability and still work, the people in wheelchairs can have a disability, and we allow them to work, and we applaud them for the efforts they make. With individuals with mental disabilities, do we want to disqualify them because they're trying to help themselves a little bit?

With my husband, the impairment is always there. It's not always obvious, and unfortunately, he cannot work, but he does do volunteer work. He has done volunteer work for many years for mental health associations, and he wants to make a contribution to society, as I think is the case with your friend. I think it's very important that we leave that window of dignity open to these individuals.

Mr. Larry Spencer: Yes, she's very proud of the fact that she works. She does get on the bus, she goes to work by herself, she returns. And I'm not sure where she stands on this.

Ms. Lembi Buchanan: Have her give me a call.

Mr. Larry Spencer: I'll find out for you. She certainly can perceive and she think. She understands when I'm teasing her, because I tease her regularly. And yet she could not live, she could not function without someone giving her care.

Ms. Lembi Buchanan: When you have some chance, please download the Radage vs The Queen case. Again, it is the most famous case. Judge Bowman went to a great deal of effort to try to understand what these words meant. Essentially, he felt that the legislators, when they were looking at using those words, took the inability to think, remember, and perceive in the normal sense we do. So that question is a little incomplete. Perhaps it should be, “Can you remember, think, and perceive in the way normal people do”, something to that effect.

Obviously, we're talking about “severe and prolonged”, and it seems to me that this individual falls into that category. But there are many similarities between this individual and Taavi Radage, and the tax deduction was allowed for him.

The Chair: We can now welcome Mr. Wall from the Schizophrenia Society of Canada, and then we can come back to further questions.

Mr. Len Wall (President, Schizophrenia Society of Ontario, Schizophrenia Society of Canada): I apologize for being late. I've been out of town, and I'm filling in for someone who couldn't make it today. How prepared I am I don't know. If you don't mind, I'll read for about three minutes.

The Schizophrenia Society of Canada is a national not-for-profit organization whose mission is to alleviate the suffering caused by schizophrenia.

Schizophrenia usually strikes individuals in their late teens and early twenties, and it's invariably a lifelong illness. It affects all races, cultures, social classes, and genders, and statistics show that one person in 100 will get schizophrenia. So in our population today that's 300,000 people suffering from a severe mental illness called schizophrenia. Many of them are dependent on their family members as their primary caregivers, and I say that as a family member. As a volunteer with the Schizophrenia Society, I also say that for hundreds and hundreds of people in this city alone I have personally talked to.

• 1640

The federal government's disability tax credit is intended to provide the individuals and families affected with some economic relief from the draining emotional and financial burden of providing for someone who struggles from a disability like schizophrenia. And I'm here today to try to share with this committee the experiences some families have had gaining access to the disability credit and to express my support for changes in the determination process of this program.

In the past many families of persons with schizophrenia were able to gain the tax credit for disabilities and get some economic relief for the draining emotional and financial burden of support for someone who struggles with simple day-to-day tasks, such as taking their meds, bathing, laundry, cooking, and just getting out of the house. I say that, again, because one of the reasons I was late was that I had to take my son to a GP. If you want an emotional situation, that's just getting him out of the house to go to see a GP to get a simple check-up.

These changes now mean that families with these responsibilities have been largely unsuccessful in securing or renewing this benefit. This burden is particularly acute for the large number of Canadian senior citizens of limited and fixed incomes who must continue to provide care for their adult children with schizophrenia.

I've talked to the Minister of Labour, Claudette Bradshaw, on several occasions about housing and the worry of families about the hidden homeless, who are the people living at home with their family member, some of them in their eighties. While my son lives at home, I hope I'm going to be around with my wife to help him for a long time. But that's only one symptom, the symptom of people who have very little income and can't get this credit. It's just wrong.

I'd like to read you a letter from a Mr. William Critchlow, who wrote to Dr. Bennett on September 20, 2001:

I the undersigned, a 67-year-old senior widower, who is caring for two severely mentally disabled children suffering from schizophrenia, as their mother also did, have after many years claimed the Disability Tax Credit which was allowed for all of them, including my wife. Now the Tax Credit is disallowed for Joan (who is 37) for the year 2000 because, as the tax office suggests, of the changes of the wording of the DTC form. I was also reminded by the tax office that my son Philip, even more severely mentally disabled, is due to be affected next year when his present form expires.

The tax credit is needed help, but no substitute for the pain and sacrifice I suffer. My children are very dependent on me for their survival and well-being. If they were in a group home, it would cost the government an awful lot more than the tax credit. Then I would have the benefit of my freedom and to live my life instead of this.

For years, Mr. Critchlow benefited from this tax credit, and then suddenly he was rejected. However, the Income Tax Act has not been changed, nor have the eligibility criteria. Furthermore, it is the same diagnosis and prognosis and the same doctor filling out the form. What has changed is the wording and interpretation of the form used to apply for this benefit. How and why have the changes to the administration of the disability tax credit form resulted in so many families, including persons with schizophrenia, being denied this modest economic relief, to which they are justly entitled?

I'm sure you've listened to a lot of people today. There are some things about the problems in the administration of the form, which I guess you asked for and which you have copies of my speech for, so I'm going to spare you that, because I'm sure you've heard it before.

• 1645

In my opinion, the current administration of the DTC is creating undue economic hardship for persons with schizophrenia and their family caregivers, a situation that has been created because those with persistent mental illness are not dealt with in a manner that is equitable to all persons with physical ailments. I believe the Income Tax Act was designed to provide tax relief to individuals with mental, as well as physical, disabilities, and that members of Parliament have an obligation to ensure that every individual is equal before the law, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age, or mental or physical disability.

Therefore, I wish to express my support for the following recommendations from the Schizophrenia Society of Canada, which I urge the Subcommittee on the Status of Persons with Disabilities to adopt.

First, a suitable process should be set up for review of the current form, incorporating appropriate input for consumers and other stakeholders with a view to completing appropriate revisions within one year.

Second, future versions of the form, as well as the application of the form, must reflect the guidelines and objectives of the Income Tax Act in a manner that is fair and equitable, regardless of the specific form of disability, whether physical or mental.

Third, certification by members of the medical profession, based on their assessment of the specific effects of certain physical and mental impairment, must be the only legal standard for the application of a disability tax credit, as required by the Income Tax Act.

Fourth, the eligibility of the individual for the disability tax credit should be reviewed after a more reasonable period, for example, five years.

In conclusion, I want to thank you for the opportunity to address the subcommittee. I look forward to the much-needed improvements in the administration of the disability tax credit. I am confident that you will keep the interests of families who already face incredible hardships paramount in your deliberations. As a family member and a person who's been very active listening and trying to help families through the mental health system, much less the tax system, I want to say this is a real frustration for them, no matter what the disability is, if someone's at home and you're trying to give them as much help as you can, and you're rejected for as little as $200. It's the poor among us who are really effected by this act, not the people in the 50% tax bracket.

Thank you very much for your time.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Do you have another question?

Mr. Larry Spencer: I would just continue with where I was, because I think he answered my question.

I read through the material hurriedly during question period today. The main economic impact is on the caregiver, the person who will actually be getting the tax credit primarily. Is that true?

Mr. Len Wall: That's what we are looking at, and I suspect everybody else is too.

Ms. Lembi Buchanan: That's not always true. In my husband's case, he does get a monthly disability payment from a private insurer, so he does get the benefit. It's worth about $1,000, and it doesn't even meet the cost of his medications, but he gets the benefit.

Mr. Larry Spencer: Okay. So there are disabled people who are making enough money that they still are being taxed on it.

Ms. Lembi Buchanan: Oh, absolutely.

Mr. Larry Spencer: This tax credit is very important.

Ms. Lembi Buchanan: Absolutely.

The Chair: Actually, one of our concerns has been that there are some people on a Canadian government CPP disability total pension who don't qualify for the tax credit. These are people we don't think should be paying tax anyway, if we had our way about personal exemption, but somebody on a full disability pension doesn't qualify for the tax credit. This is where we think the definition problem lies and the coherence of public policy is lacking. Hopefully, we'll be able to explore that. It's a problem.

Mr. Larry Spencer: Thank you very much.

• 1650

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Lava -Centre, BQ): Thank you for joining us on this beautiful November afternoon.

I paid close attention to your testimony and I learned that things have not changed a great deal. Most of you may not know that I worked in the health field for nearly 40 years and that, personally, I have had to deal with a situation that closely resembles the one you described, Ms. Buchanan.

I read this form and it is obvious that a patient such as your husband or mine would not have been eligible for that. I think that it is incumbent upon the government to treat its citizens equitably. This is probably the most difficult thing for a government to do, because according to the individuals lobbying the government, we will have more or less equity. I am sure that you have ideas about how we could design an intelligent questionnaire that would enable therapists to use their discretion. There are still some intelligent people out there. They are not all in Parliament, right?

When I read the form, I thought about the son of one of my friends who must now be 21 or 22 years old, who was involved in a serious car accident and was in a coma for a very long time. He can do incredible mathematical equations but, in everyday life, there are a lot of little things that he cannot do, such as changing his underwear. He cannot do that. Since his parents are both professionals, there is no problem, but really, shouldn't this young man have an opportunity to feel a little bit independent? We know that financial resources make that possible.

Consequently, is it conceivable that you could design an intelligent form? The present form has been in existence for a few years now. There have been many representations. We have heard them here. They did not change anything. All of the ministers have told us, one after the other, that yes, they were going to earmark the money, they were going to do this and that, but it is not true. The budget will be tabled in 10 or 15 days. I am left-handed and I would bet my left hand that there will be nothing or nearly nothing for the disabled, but perhaps I am mistaken. My question is as follows: Do you have any models to suggest to the government?

Ms. Pauline Mantha: One of the problems is that we are stuck with one form. I would suggest that we think about developing three, four or five forms: one form for those with physical handicaps, a form for our handicaps and a form for other types of handicaps. We have proof that the one-size-fits-all model does not work.

Mr. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: That is right.

Ms. Pauline Mantha: I would therefore recommend that we think about creating three or four different forms intended for the various target groups.

Mr. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: That is right. And we need to ensure that the professional person who has to complete the form—

Ms. Pauline Mantha: Exactly.

Mr. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: ... will be able to say that the gentleman, lady or child before him falls into such and such a category.

Ms. Pauline Mantha: Exactly.

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: Are we taking note of that, Madam Chair?

[English]

Ms. Lembi Buchanan: I'd like to point out also that Revenue Canada has already created a precedent with the form you have in front of you. The Cystic Fibrosis Foundation has lobbied for many years to be included. Somehow, when the legislators were drawing up the Income Tax Act, they didn't take into consideration that breathing was a basic activity of daily living. If you look at that page of your form, you'll see that there is a separate box created for people on life-sustaining therapy who need assistance, like kidney dialysis and cystic fibrosis treatment. So if having five different forms is too ambitious for Revenue Canada, maybe we can at least have different parts of the form specifically.

• 1655

I was speaking just on Sunday to the chief of psychiatry for Sunnybrook Hospital in Toronto, which has a major psychiatric facility, and I mentioned that I was involved with the submission to change the form. He said, you know, I just filled out that form the other day, and I answered all the questions and checked off the boxes, but I turned the page and I couldn't find the section on mental illnesses.

The Chair: On that, Mado, Bill Young has just reminded us that the courts, in their decision, read breathing into the act. This was done as a legal judgment, not as fine-tuning by the department. Again, I think it's a question of how we proceed with this change in the kinds of forms.

Also, there seems to be something called a long form. Does anyone on the panel have that?

Ms. Lembi Buchanan: It's a supplementary questionnaire. I showed it to Bill Young, and he has photocopied it.

This is what happens. If the doctor chooses to check the no box—“Can your patient perceive, think, and remember?”—then CCRA is looking for clarification. They also mention right on the form that if the doctor charges you extra to fill out that form, they are not going to cover the cost.

I'm not a lawyer, but it's my position that it's illegal to send out that form. We have the MacIsaac case in the Federal Court of Appeal. As some of you may know, we did win our Tax Court case for my husband in June, and Canada Customs and Revenue Agency is appealing the case. They are determined not to let anyone with a serious mental illness get this modest tax credit. They are going to great expense to appeal it because they have to pay all of our legal costs. The MacIsaac case states—and this is in the Federal Court of Appeal—that as long as the doctor certifies that an individual is disabled, that is the last word, and that has to be accepted. I was able to go to court because the doctor contradicted himself on the form. He said on one page my husband was markedly restricted, and on the other page he checked the infamous yes box for mental functions. So Revenue Canada is going to court on the premise that we can't question the doctor's position, but when they want to question the doctor's certification on a form, they send out the supplementary questionnaire. My position is that it is not legal.

The Chair: So the supplementary questionnaire applies only if you tick no about perceiving, thinking, and remembering.

Ms. Lembi Buchanan: On that form Bill Young has the name of the individual has been blanked out, but that is an actual form, and on the basis of that form, the individual was disqualified. It is my thinking that the reason the individual was disqualified was the question. The question asks, during the year what percentage of time was your patient unable to think, remember, and perceive? The question defies common sense. As Pauline Mantha said, the person has to be dead if the answer is 100%, but the magic answer is 90%. You only know that if you have read bulletin IT-513R2, because that's what “markedly restricted” is. “Markedly restricted” means 90% of the time. Where did we get this? Apparently, in order to qualify for the DTC, if you have visual acuity of 20/200 or less, you qualify. I got the information from my eye doctor, and it means you have lost 90% of your vision. It's my guess that this is where it came from.

• 1700

And I'd just like to point out one more thing, if I may, Madam Chairman. One of the reasons I became so passionately involved in this mission, beyond believing that my husband qualifies, is that I'm legally blind in my right eye. If I lost the vision in my left eye, I would qualify for the disability tax credit. I can count all the people around the table. I can't make out the faces well enough to know exactly who they are, but I can distinguish between a man and a woman. I would have some challenges playing the piano, which I like to do, but I would have no problem going shopping, cooking, taking care of myself, doing housekeeping, and hopefully, having a job still.

I want to ask all of you, if you had a choice and if you had to suffer, like Joe, from a major disability, what would you choose, legally blind, where you can still function, or losing your mind? Do we have a choice? Of course not. We would all opt for the legally blind, because at least our minds are functioning clearly and we can set goals for ourselves and have a life for ourselves.

The Chair: Mr. Pennington.

Mr. Ed Pennington: Madam Chair, you've heard some very powerful stuff today from individuals, family members, and organizations, and I think we're all here to help. I'm not sure of your political process, and I don't know whether CCRA is open to public scrutiny, but I think there has been a plot there in the last few years to diminish the number of people who are eligible for the disability tax credit, and I don't know whether you have access to finding just where those missives came from and how they're implemented by clerks in the CCRA. It's really quite astonishing. If we can help you by giving you optional forms or providing questions and advice, we would be more than willing to do that. I don't know how we gain access to the Department of Finance, where all the instructions come from in the first place, or CCRA or HRDC. We can help you if you'll give us some advice as you move towards your conclusions.

The Chair: We will be calling the officials, and if there are specific questions you think we should be asking them, communicate with us or the researchers to make sure those questions are asked. That would be very helpful.

Also, as Madame Dalphond-Guiral has said, if you had what you would consider the dream questionnaire or, as Pauline had said, a selection of questionnaires that were condition-specific, then obviously, we would love to be able to incorporate those kinds of suggestions in our report.

Pauline.

Ms. Pauline Mantha: You were asking about the long form.

The Chair: Yes.

Ms. Pauline Mantha: I can tell you from our experience that medical practitioners are insulted when they have to complete these forms, because essentially, what happens is that their medical expertise is challenged—and I'm not suggesting that it should never be challenged.

The Chair: What part of “no means no” don't they get?

Ms. Pauline Mantha: Exactly.

Also, when I suggested that maybe you should consider a number of forms, what I was trying to say is that the forms should be designed not for individual disabilities, but for disability groups.

The Chair: Thank you.

Wendy.

Ms. Wendy Lill: Thank you so much for coming before us today. It's really important that we hear what you have to say.

I'd like to tell you a bit about what we heard last week, because it fits in with what you're saying here. It was the first go-round for us on this issue. The reason we're doing this is that we've heard that 70,000 to 90,000 people have received these letters. We've seen the letter, basically saying they have to reapply for the disability tax credit, and they may have to pay between $30 and $120 to go to a doctor to tell them they are still legally blind or still have Down's Syndrome. It's a huge waste of money, and energy and emotional capital as well.

• 1705

With the point you've just made, Ed, many groups said there seems to be a plot to reduce the number of people who are eligible for a disability tax credit. You shrink the definitions, you make the hoops so large and high that you simply can't fit any more in. I guess there is a sense that the CPP disability program has become more restrictive, and now the next thing they're going after is the tax. What we need to do here as parliamentarians is see where the disability tax credit fits into a much larger picture of supports for persons with disabilities.

Again to go back to last week, we heard a very depressing picture of the fact that the supports for persons with disabilities are not increasing, they're not being enhanced, they are in fact being whittled away. So there is such a sense of outrage that this one little tax credit, which only gets to people who make any money, is in fact being pulled back.

So it's a good news-bad news situation. The bad news is that this thing is happening, that these offensive letters have gone out. The good news is that we are now looking at this, and really looking at it carefully. This Hour Has 22 Minutes could do skits on this form.

A voice: They are outside in the hall.

Ms. Wendy Lill: Well, maybe we should get them in here right now to take a look at some of this language. You can't look at this form and in any way understand where it's coming from. It is laughable. Maybe a lot of government forms are like that, and maybe a lot of the things we say are like that, but it's not good enough. It's an insult for professionals who have to deal with it. It's an insult to persons with disabilities who have to read through this and try to figure out whether they fit in here.

I heard from someone in my riding that they are going to give up on this disability tax credit, because their daughter, who has struggled mightily with a intellectual disability to fit into the world and to work and to live independently, doesn't even want to have to go there. She doesn't want to have to go to a doctor and be told, no, Laurel, you're not quite this enough or that enough. They've just decided they're walking away from it, because of their own dignity and her dignity.

It's very important that we're hearing from you, and we're really going to use what you have to say in our meetings with the department.

I also wanted to ask what Mado asked, whether you have any sense of a form that works, and I'm interested in the fact that you said several forms are necessary. I was going to ask if there's any country that's got forms that work. If we know of any other jurisdictions that are dealing well with a tax credit system for persons with disabilities, I'd like to know that. I'm also interested in knowing who we think the gatekeepers for the tax credit should be. I don't think everybody's comfortable with the family doctor, who you may or may not get along with, share values with, holding that kind of power over your life. Any comments?

Ms. Lembi Buchanan: I'd like to go back to whether there are any other forms. I can't speak for precise forms, but I can say that I've done a lot of research into the definition of disability, and every province has a different definition. The Ontario government has a new definition for the Ontario disability support program, which is actually quite inclusive. It's probably the best definition that's out there at present, because it recognizes not only continuous problems, but that many of these impairments are recurrent or persistent. It allows the latitude, at least, for the physician to make the decision. As far as I understand, the bottom line is that there is no good definition of disability. We're able to diagnose mental illnesses, we have good diagnostic tools, but we do not have a good definition of disability. That's a huge challenge.

• 1710

There are two ways you can go. You can make it loosey-goosey, providing the doctor with a few guidelines and letting him make the decision, or make it very restrictive again, where individuals are boxed in. As Pauline Mantha says, two people with learning disabilities do not have the same situation, so I won't be so presumptuous as to provide guidance in that area. I don't think it's appropriate for me, I don't have the medical training.

I will keep the committee up to date. If I find anything new that you might find useful or worth considering, or merely discussing, I will send it along to you.

Mr. Len Wall: You touched on the fact that people are saying, I'm not even going to apply. I can only speak for mental illness, but people with mental illness have no self-confidence to start with. They've lost it. My son is a computer programmer, he'll never work, and that affects everything in his life—he's a failure. When his own government says he's a failure by rejecting an application, that's even worse.

I realize, however, that we do need to have control, we do have to be prudent with our finances as a government. But if someone has been put on long-term disability, whether it's by Canada Pension or ODSP or the equivalent in the other provinces, what more would you want than that as a guide? They're on a long-term disability that a provincial government is paying them—in Ontario it's $914 a month. Is there anything else you need to demonstrate the disability? In order to get on that disability in the first place, there were an awful lot of stringent tests this person had to go through. So that is something you could look at maybe as a guide.

Ms. Wendy Lill: On that point, some people have wondered, if they no longer qualify for the disability tax credit federally, how long will it be before there will be a rollback and somehow they will no longer be eligible for the ODSP or whatever provincial program. That must be an absolutely terrifying prospect. It is an unacceptable one.

Ms. Lembi Buchanan: Madam Chair, may I just read the Ontario disability support definition? It's quite brief, and is subsection 4(1) of the act.

A person is a person with a disability for the purposes of this Part if,

(a) the person has a substantial physical or mental impairment that is continuous or recurrent and expected to last one year or more;

(b)the direct and cumulative effect of the impairment on the person's ability to attend to his or her own personal care, function in the community and function in a workplace, results in a substantial restriction in one or more of these activities of daily living;

Here's where we're getting into a very different situation, because they define activities of daily living very differently from the federal government. That's it. There's a very detailed form the doctors have to fill out, but those are the basic criteria.

The Chair: I've heard in a couple of places that this definition is one of the better ones. Are all the panellists comfortable with that definition? I think cystic fibrosis has beem, and MS, and some of the others, because of the recurrent piece in there. It seems to cover most of the things we have concerns about.

Ms. Lembi Buchanan: It covers the tax guidelines too, in that it has to be severe, prolonged, at least a year. It meets a lot of the criteria in the Income Tax Act.

My husband has a real problem in that he gets CPP and now he's been denied the DTC. This is a huge problem. You'll get it from everybody who gets the CPP and is denied the DTC.

I think people forget the historical reasons for these programs. CPP is a work replacement income. You are no longer able to work, so you get this monthly insurance. The disability tax credit was specifically set up to assist with the extra costs of living incurred because you have a disability: people in wheelchairs, obviously, have costs of the wheelchairs, the people who are blind have extra costs. In fact, it was only available until 1986 for people in wheelchairs, people who are bedridden, and people who are legally blind. In 1986 they expanded the criteria, but the DTC is not designed to exclude people who work, because, again, many of the blind people who have these extraordinary expenses still are able to work.

• 1715

So this is where it really gets confusing, and the point I made before is, please, whatever we do, don't allow CCRA to exclude people because they're trying to do a small job or do volunteer work or this type of thing, because they're able to go out and work. If the blind can work and get the DTC, let the people with the mental impairments at least have those opportunities available to them.

The Chair: Len.

Mr. Len Wall: Again, it comes down to dignity of people. We have a group here in Ottawa of severely mentally ill people that meets every Monday night. Most of them live alone, most of them have no family support. They never go out of the house. They come to this one little group meeting of about 30 people because they say, I feel comfortable here, nobody judges me. I asked them one time what was the one thing they wanted out of life. Every one of them said, I want a job. Every one of them wanted a job more than more money, anything. They wanted the dignity of being able to give back to society. Their version of a job is not our version, but they wanted to be able to say, I volunteered, or, I worked two hours a day for three days a week, or whatever it is, because then they felt they were part of the community.

Too many people would be disqualified because they could work two hours a day, and it's that type of thing that we have to look at. I understand that bureaucrats have a job to do, but I'm a family member and I see too many, and emotions come into it very highly for me. People who are struggling or courageous enough just to be able to live and still say, I want to go out and give to my community, should be recognized, not penalized.

The Chair: Thanks very much.

Tony.

Mr. Tony Tirabassi (Niagara Centre, Lib.): Thank you, Madam Chair.

Along with my committee colleagues, I join in welcoming all of you who have taken the time to come out here and explain to us exactly what it is you're dealing with, the hurdles.

I must say that I agree with Ms. Lill, listening to the witnesses we've heard so far, including you today, that really this is just another little thorn in the side. Many of you have said it's not about the money, but again, it's one of those insulting steps you are put through to claim so little. The underpinnings are much greater when it comes to what your requirements are, what the causes are, how you're defined, and all of that.

I related to the committee last week that by coincidence, during the November 11 break week back in the riding I had a constituent come in waving this form in my face, so I've had first-hand experience. The question must be asked, was there not a consultative process with Canada Customs and Revenue Agency when they originally designed these forms, the pre-December 2000 form, the new post-December 2000 form? I want to believe you, and I do, but I'm hard-pressed to believe that doesn't happen. I've only been here a year, actually a year today, so I guess I've got a lot to learn. Is there not some sort of recommendation we can make to that effect before changes are made? You're telling me that you have never been contacted to sit down and discuss the forms

• 1720

Ms. Lembi Buchanan: As far as I know, the only consulting they did was with the Canadian Medical Association. I've tried to explore to what depth that consultation process went, and the best I've come up with is that it was the Canadian Medical Association that was looking for a simpler form, suggesting maybe checking off yes-no boxes. Certainly, for physical disabilities we have some contentious issues still, but we don't have a lot of them. With visual acuity, 20/200 is a standard that's been accepted for more than 100 years.

They sent around the form, from what I understand, and the CMA said it was okay, and they went ahead with it. That's all the information I have. They never consulted the Canadian Psychiatric Association, as far as I know, or the Canadian Psychological Association. They certainly didn't consult the man on the street. I would have been first in line.

Mr. Tony Tirabassi: That would be my concern. Certainly, that would address the difficulty, how to make it simpler for a doctor in his office involving his professional opinion and analysing whatever it is he has to analyse, depending on the patient in front of him. So that's great, it's very accommodating for the practitioner—I don't know if the chair will agree with that—but it doesn't address what you people have to put up with outside that office. Again, to circulate to the CMA is one thing, but it hasn't been turned to you people.

Ms. Pauline Mantha: When CCRA was Revenue Canada, they had, I recall, consulted with the disabilities community. I remember our organization participating in at least one of those meetings, but I don't recall any consultations regarding this form, for example, since Revenue Canada has changed to CCRA.

Mr. Len Wall: If you look at the form, and then you look at what a doctor has to do, psychiatrists especially.... All doctors are so busy, but there just aren't enough psychiatrists in any community in Canada by a long way. First, they don't get paid. Second, they don't have the time. They hardly have the time to be able to sit down with a patient, much less fill out a form. So they fill it out and they tick the box, and frankly, I'm sure they don't know what they're really ticking, because they don't understand the implications of ticking no.

My son, if he came here, could most likely testify, but I couldn't get him to the doctor. He won't come to a restaurant with us. Just because a man can win $1 million on a show, because he has lots of intelligence, it doesn't mean he can function in society. From our experience, 100% of new applications for this form from people with schizophrenia have been rejected, and you have to go to the second step.

Ms. Lembi Buchanan: May I address something a little from a historical point of view, just to give a little background? Before we had CCRA, my husband first applied for the disability tax credit. As I mentioned, he became severely disabled in December 1990, so in June 1991 he applied for CPP, he applied for DTC, and he applied to Prudential for the long-term disability benefits. He was at first rejected for all of them. We've had to fight every single thing all the way through. What Revenue Canada did back then was send a letter requesting additional documentation from his doctor. They sent that information to Health and Welfare Canada. At that time there was a department with medical professionals who made that assessment in those difficult situations.

Actually, in my submission there is that letter. Let's see if I've got it right here. I'll just read the two sentences, if I may. This is dated April 7, 1994. Remember, he applied for the DTC in June 1991.

Dear Sir,

We have received a reply concerning your eligibility for the disability amount. Our medical advisers at Health and Welfare Canada have determined that you qualify for this credit from 1990 to 1995 taxation years.

I want to stress the fact that my husband went through the strictest evaluation possible to get the DTC. It wasn't one of these cases where the clerk saw a form go by and maybe didn't really pay attention or whatever. His documentation was scrutinized by a lot of people and medical professionals, and he qualified. When he no longer qualified, we were distressed.

• 1725

Incidentally, he claimed for the CPP in June 1991. He got the letter of acceptance, finally, in June 1993. And in February 1995 we finally won our court case against Prudential for the long-term disability. So it's a long fight to get anything from anybody when you're disabled, particularly with a mental impairment. I think you should understand how they used to do it, and they no longer do it that way. It's just a clerical process, from my understanding, because anybody can count the number of yes and no boxes.

Mr. Tony Tirabassi: Just to wrap up, then, it's my understanding, Madam Chair, that we are going to be also hearing from departmental officials.

The Chair: Yes.

Mr. Tony Tirabassi: Okay, great.

The Chair: Also, if there's any last-minute advice for when we have the medical practitioners before us in two weeks, that would be welcome. I think Lembi mentioned this idea that doctors actually now almost have to contradict themselves, saying yes on the front and no on the back.

Ms. Lembi Buchanan: That's absolutely right. As I mentioned before, the diagnosis hasn't changed, the doctor hasn't changed. Dr. Cook was put in a very difficult position, because my husband demanded that he complete the form. He said to my husband, well, you can think, remember, and perceive, so I'm going to have to check the yes box, and that's going to disqualify you. I said to Dr. Cook, I don't care which boxes you check, just give us the form, but please, check the markedly restricted in mental functions box, because that's what you checked before. That's where he contradicted himself.

Mr. Ed Pennington: If I may, there are the problems with the form, which we've all discussed, and we're willing to help to try to solve that, but I think there's a phantom policy out there that's been imposed from on high. If you, with your resources, can find out what that was and how many millions of dollars, just by virtually turning people down, they've chosen to save on the back of the disabled, that's really where the search ought to be.

The Chair: Last week, after the formal part of the hearing stopped, there was someone, I believe, who said to us that when they called the 1-800 number for clarification, the assistance number with the form, somebody accidentally admitted that perhaps the intent of the new form was to decrease the number of people who qualified by 50%. I don't know who was answering the phone or whether they still have their job, but it may not be too far down the system that this is indeed the intent of this new form. And as all of you have said to us, the Income Tax Act hasn't changed at all, the form has changed. If there is indeed this intent, before we hear the officials, we will gather more ammunition.

Mr. Wall.

Mr. Len Wall: When the medical people come, I hope there are going to be psychiatrists there, because it's really important.

Also, I'm getting the impression there's a lot of compassionate understanding from you people. If it can't be changed, a lot of families would say, be compassionate and take a bit out of the act, so we can't get rejected all the time.

• 1730

The Chair: I think again this week we've heard lots. I think that it is affirming the reason we decided to do this study. I can't thank you all enough for coming. I hope you will accept our invitation for ongoing communication, that you will follow the hearings, and if there are things you think we should be asking or should be considering, you will let us know.

Next week we are hearing some of the other misfits in respect of this restrictive definition, cystic fibrosis, the hard of hearing, multiple sclerosis, Easter Seals, paraplegics, and cerebral palsy. We hope your testimony, added to theirs, will give us good questions for the last two panels, which will be the doctors and the officials.

So thank you very much. À bientôt.